Why for OKC? They get a quality bigman who can score. He has 2 years left of his rookie deal. Yes he will get paid at the end of this but I think OKC would pay him, giving max to center with the potential to be top 3 at his position is better than paying a guy who was your 6th man (Harden).Lamb & PJIII are not helping now, DMC would. They also get rid of Perkins for a backup SF and a PG to backup Westbrook and provide some instant offense.

Why for SAC? Plain and simple they are not a good team. There's only so far a guy like DMC can lead a team. He needs to be the 2nd guy in order to mature and grow. Yes Lamb is not in a position of need but they can start him and chose to move Evans or let him expire and save money. They rebuild completely with picks and a plethora of young players. They do not really need Brooks or Garcia so moving them does not make them a lot worse.

j_angel wrote:Why for OKC? They get a quality bigman who can score. He has 2 years left of his rookie deal. Yes he will get paid at the end of this but I think OKC would pay him, giving max to center with the potential to be top 3 at his position is better than paying a guy who was your 6th man (Harden).Lamb & PJIII are not helping now, DMC would. They also get rid of Perkins for a backup SF and a PG to backup Westbrook and provide some instant offense.

Seen this a few times and still trying to figure this out - why does OKC need a backup PG? Is Maynor not any good? I've always thought he was a decent player who's on of the better backup PGs in the league and seems to have recovered from his injury. Am I missing something that everyone else sees?

BTW, this shouldn't affect the trade at all. Brooks can be removed without salary ramifications - the deal is for Cousins, not Brooks.

I included Brooks for a few reasons.1) Maynor has just come back from a serious injury2) They should play Westbrook at SG for a portion of the game, especially against slower SG's.3) Maynor is expiring this year, can they afford to pay him what he will want? If not Brooks is a cheap alternative. 4) I dont think sac need him (their other two PGs are so similar to him), so they save a little bit which they may want to since they are taking on perkins.

But yes the main deal isPJIII/Lamb/picks for DMC.with a Perkins for Garcia swap to sweeten the deal for OKC (and save them a couple of mil a year) and give them a player in a position of need.

Personally would not call a guaranteed lotto pick (likely high), a late 1st and two very good prospects minor pieces. Its more than Orlando got for Dwight and similar to what they got for Harden (PJIII as opposed to Martin).

j_angel wrote:Personally would not call a guaranteed lotto pick (likely high), a late 1st and two very good prospects minor pieces. Its more than Orlando got for Dwight and similar to what they got for Harden (PJIII as opposed to Martin).

Dwight wanted out and Orlando had no leverage. Cousins is happy (or so we're told) and Kings have ALL the leverage. Orlando didn't have to take on Perkins, instead they got to dump Duhon. This is horrendous for the Kings any way you try to put it. For it to even be considerable, Ibaka needs to be subbed in Perkins' place.

Yeah, SAC sucks and Cousins needs to mature. We all know that. But SAC won't trade him for minor pieces. SAC doesn't need another guard, SAC doesn't need another PF, the Dallas pick is heavy protected, Perkins sucks just like his contract and the only valuable piece here is the TOR pick.

Wasabi_Johnson wrote:I wouldn't trade all that for Cousins. He's a very inefficient center. You can only be young and with potential for so long before its time to start showing something on the court.

reallly dude lolzzzz cousins is far and away the best player in this deal....In case u havent noticed that package wont even sniff getting cousins

Wait... Is there really people talking about VALUE in a Derrick Coleman, er, DeMarcus Cousins trade thread? Really???DC2 is a straight up nutjob and SAC has no shot of getting full value for him. This would actually be a great trade for them if OKC went for it. However, OKC is trying to win chips and head cases tend to derail chip aspirations. So it's a no go for them.

Wasabi_Johnson wrote:I wouldn't trade all that for Cousins. He's a very inefficient center. You can only be young and with potential for so long before its time to start showing something on the court.

reallly dude lolzzzz cousins is far and away the best player in this deal....In case u havent noticed that package wont even sniff getting cousins

Never said or even implied that he wasn't the best player in the deal or that the package was even good enough for him. Point was OKC can't trade for someone with their best assets and hope they reach whatever potential they have left.

oyoyer wrote:Wait... Is there really people talking about VALUE in a Derrick Coleman, er, DeMarcus Cousins trade thread? Really???DC2 is a straight up nutjob and SAC has no shot of getting full value for him. This would actually be a great trade for them if OKC went for it. However, OKC is trying to win chips and head cases tend to derail chip aspirations. So it's a no go for them.

I agree, Detroit trading for Rasheed Wallace was a complete disaster and totally destroyed their chances to win a championship. Oh wait...

Cousins is damaged goods. He's a 28+ USG center who can't score efficiently. He's taking 5 jump shots a game from 16-23 feet and shooting less than 30% on them. He's a big man who shoots less than 60% at the rim. The kid is talented, and if the Thunder had Gregg Popovich, Larry Brown, or another big time coach with the cajones to reign him in I'd be all for it. Scott Brooks isn't going to be that guy.